Both Fox News host Sean Hannity and the media company itself have downplayed the revelation in open court Monday that Hannity was the third, then-unnamed client that Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's personal attorney, listed in a Monday court filing in Cohen's temporary restraining order proceeding before U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood of the Southern District of New York.

“Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees. I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective,” Hannity said in a statement posted on his professional website.

Hannity added that he “assumed those conversations were confidential, but to be absolutely clear they never involved any matter between me and a third-party.” This last statement appears to be a reference to questions raised about the other parties Cohen mentioned, Trump and former GOP fundraiser Elliott Broidy.

Cohen has admitted arranging a $130,000 payment to the former adult-film actress Stephanie Clifford, who goes by the stage name Stormy Daniels, just before the 2016 presidential election. Daniels has said she had an affair with Trump. The president has denied the claim.

Reports revealed earlier this month that Cohen had helped Broidy arrange the payment of $1.6 million in 2017 to a former Playboy model to keep quiet about a relationship that resulted in the woman becoming pregnant.

Hannity went on to add that he did not ask Cohen “to bring this proceeding” against the government on his behalf, and that he has no “personal interest” in the proceeding. He says he asked that his “de minimis discussions with Michael Cohen, which dealt almost exclusively about real estate,” not be “made part of” the proceedings now faced by Cohen.

On Tuesday, Fox News said in a statement attributed to the company that it stands by Hannity.

“While Fox News was unaware of Sean Hannity's informal relationship with Michael Cohen and was surprised by the announcement in court yesterday, we have reviewed the matter and spoken to Sean and he continues to have our full support,” the statement read.

While the reveal of Hannity's involvement with Cohen in the courtroom proved explosive, with gasps and snickers quickly following, the episode does as much to highlight the concerns raised by the government that Cohen's legal strategy will, as expressed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas McKay, continue to rely on overstated privilege that fails to stand up to scrutiny.

“They're setting the stage to take that inch and make it a mile,” he said.

Even the proceeding's purpose Monday represented a diminished effort on the part of Cohen's attorneys. Last week, Cohen's attorneys with McDermott Will & Emery, partners Todd Harrison and Stephen Ryan, filed a request for a temporary restraining order to stop the government from beginning to sort through the evidence collected from Cohen over concern that “thousands if not millions” of privileged documents were potentially at issue.

On Monday, the words “temporary restraining order” never appeared to once be uttered by either of Cohen's attorneys.

The government, on the other hand, has remained consistent. As McKay reiterated on multiple occasions Monday, echoing language in prior filings, prosecutors do not believe that privilege problems are likely to arise. Noting that “Michael Cohen might have a legal degree,” McKay stated that the investigation and search is largely related to private dealings and business work.

If anything, Hannity's pushback on the privileged nature of his conversations with Cohen work to bolster the government's point. For her part, Wood has kept the issue of privilege squarely within circuit law, which led to her overriding of Cohen's attorney's concerns Monday and the reveal of Hannity in the first place.

Yet any indication that Monday was a loss for either Cohen or Trump, who was represented at the hearing by his new attorneys from Spears & Imes, led by partner Joanna Hendon, misses a critical point.

Opposing counsel sought to remove the government from the process and to have Trump and/or Cohen get first cut of any potentially privileged documents—or, in Cohen's case, have a special master appointed to mediate. Both positions appeared to push the boundaries of what is reasonable and customary in criminal investigations. But Wood's apparent determination to make sure Cohen and, through his team, Trump have access to pertinent material seized by the government in its raids handed at least a partial victory for both parties.

Meanwhile, the government will get to start building its search term list, with input from counsel for Cohen and Trump, ahead of the next wave of discussions between the parties and Wood to determine what, if any, material may require a special master's purview.